Mercury News editorial: San Jose crime rate alarms

San Jose auditor Sharon Erickson's report on public safety this week was as neutral and objective as can be. But it's going to be the most quoted document in the political arena -- which is the polar opposite of objective -- in the 2014 campaign to succeed Chuck Reed as mayor of what used to be the safest big city in America.

The report both quantified and clarified -- Erickson's forte -- a spike in crime and a plunge in arrests over several years. It was an eye-opener because, while we knew crime was up generally, the once comparatively safe San Jose now has a worse record than the state or nation in numbers of crimes per capita and the percentages solved.

It is still safer by far than San Francisco and Oakland, and it has far lower rates of major crimes than Los Angeles and San Diego. But burglaries, which are up everywhere, have really soared here. And this is a crime that, while nonviolent, makes people feel unsafe and vulnerable.

Reactions to the report go in two directions. One is to look back and ascribe blame, generally, to Reed's wing of the City Council, which pursued pension reform to save tax dollars through a ballot measure that is now mired in the courts. The other is to look ahead to the solution: How to hire more cops to return to the levels of patrols, response times and investigations that once kept the city safer.

This is where it gets complicated.

Advertisement

There is not enough revenue today to support a police force of the size the city had five years ago without eliminating other services people say they want or changing long-standing policies or practices locked into labor contracts, such as the number of firefighters required per truck.

For 10 years San Jose has seen its cost per employee soar, largely because of pension costs, while the number of employees has plunged. Well before the Great Recession, the city was cutting services every year to balance budgets, getting to police layoffs only after many other departments were cut to the bone.

Now some are saying the city never should have asked police officers to take a 10 percent pay cut, like other city employees, or pressed for dramatic pension reform. But the only alternatives proposed at the time either pushed today's debts onto future residents or otherwise used budgetary smoke and mirrors.

Just restoring the 10 percent pay cut to police officers, with a little extra, as agreed in the new union contract, will send the city into deficit once again after 2015 if there is no surge in revenue or cut in other costs. And that's without restoring the pay cuts to other departments.

Citizen groups are proposing various reforms to free up more money for essentials such as police, libraries and public parks -- all of which have public safety implications. For example, libraries offer a safe haven and learning environment for kids after school; when they're closed, kids on the street are more prone to getting into trouble or becoming victims of crime.

But few if any of the cost savings, like that firefighter manning rule, can be achieved quickly. The alternative for quick action is a temporary tax, but if that's what residents want, they're going to have to persuade a reluctant mayor and council majority to put it on the ballot and to campaign for it.

In January, the mayor and council begin work on the 2014-15 budget in earnest, surveying residents for priorities and inviting participation in meetings and workshops. Erickson's report sets the stage for a lively debate, and candidates for mayor and council will be jumping in with their answers. But key decisions about priorities will be made this winter and spring, well before the June primary. If you care about public safety, taxes, or other aspects of city services or finances, this is the time to get engaged.